by Gimptown » Thu May 07, 2009 2:37 pm
by Tessaglia » Thu May 07, 2009 2:49 pm
by The Emmerian Unions » Thu May 07, 2009 4:26 pm
Gimptown wrote:2) All World Assembly states are to abolish death as a legal penalty.
Gimptown wrote:5) If a World Assembly state does not provide national legislation for actions within section 3, any actions taken shall breach this Resolution.
Ifreann wrote:"And in world news, the United States has recently elected Bill Gates as God Emperor For All Time. Foreign commentators believe that Gates' personal fortune may have played a role in his victory, but criticism from the United States of Gates(as it is now known) has been sparse and brief."
by Cheztope » Thu May 07, 2009 4:38 pm
by The Emmerian Unions » Thu May 07, 2009 4:50 pm
Cheztope wrote:I don't really know how it even works. What's the point of the resolutions?
Ifreann wrote:"And in world news, the United States has recently elected Bill Gates as God Emperor For All Time. Foreign commentators believe that Gates' personal fortune may have played a role in his victory, but criticism from the United States of Gates(as it is now known) has been sparse and brief."
by Rutianas » Thu May 07, 2009 5:29 pm
Gimptown wrote:Hey, I'm pretty new, but wanted to submit a proposal. Any comments on this welcome before I do.
The Nations of the World Assembly shall recognise that all persons within their jurisdiction have the right to life.
In this resolution, person is to mean a living human being from birth until death.
1) All World Assembly states shall protect all persons’ right to life by law. No person shall be deprived of his or her life by a World Assembly state.
2) All World Assembly states are to abolish death as a legal penalty.
3) A World Assembly state will not be in breach of this resolution if it deprives a person of life:
a. in lawful defence of any person from violence;
b. in to prevent the escape of a dangerous person lawfully detained;
c. in order to prevent an act of terrorism;
d. in order to prevent violent revolution;
e. when engaged in an act of war.
4) All actions under section 3 must comply with existing state and World Assembly laws.
[/quote]5) If a World Assembly state does not provide national legislation for actions within section 3, any actions taken shall breach this Resolution.
by Philimbesi » Thu May 07, 2009 7:28 pm
by Absolvability » Thu May 07, 2009 8:05 pm
Gimptown wrote:e. when engaged in an act of war.
by Southern Confederate States (Ancient) » Fri May 08, 2009 12:55 am
by Wencee » Fri May 08, 2009 4:59 am
by Absolvability » Fri May 08, 2009 7:38 am
by Gimptown » Fri May 08, 2009 11:20 am
The Nations of the World Assembly shall recognise that all persons within their jurisdiction have the right to life.
In this resolution, person is to mean a living human being from birth until death.
1) All World Assembly member states shall protect all persons’ right to life by law. No person shall be deprived of his or her life by a World Assembly state.
2) A World Assembly member state will not be in breach of this resolution if it deprives a person of life:
a. in lawful defence of any person from violence;
b. to prevent the escape of any violent person lawfully detained;
c. to prevent an act of terrorism;
d. when engaged in a legal act of war;
e. as a legal penalty under existing state laws.
3) World Assembly member states with no existing legal penalty of death are prohibited from introducing the penalty.
4) Any World Assembly member state which repeals an existing legal penalty of death is prohibited from reintroducing the penalty at a later date.
by Fallafel » Fri May 08, 2009 11:50 am
by Tessaglia » Fri May 08, 2009 12:20 pm
Fallafel wrote:How do you propose we detain dangerous escapees? More taxes? Some people don't have the luxury of 3 squares and a roof over their head. Why not execute people who have killed others? While I agree that people deserve the right to live, I also believe that the odds of a serial killer becoming rehabilitated are extremely low, and that if they can take peoples lives away they automatically give up their right to live period. Don't you think this world is corrupt enough with having to fear the worst for doing the worst? I believe people don't kill other people for that reason alone sometimes. Take away the death penalty, and their will be a lot more murdering going on.
~President Dolores --The Republic of Falafel
by Absolvability » Fri May 08, 2009 12:28 pm
by Philimbesi » Fri May 08, 2009 12:38 pm
by Anumia » Fri May 08, 2009 12:56 pm
by Flibbleites » Fri May 08, 2009 3:47 pm
Tessaglia wrote:Fallafel wrote:How do you propose we detain dangerous escapees? More taxes? Some people don't have the luxury of 3 squares and a roof over their head. Why not execute people who have killed others? While I agree that people deserve the right to live, I also believe that the odds of a serial killer becoming rehabilitated are extremely low, and that if they can take peoples lives away they automatically give up their right to live period. Don't you think this world is corrupt enough with having to fear the worst for doing the worst? I believe people don't kill other people for that reason alone sometimes. Take away the death penalty, and their will be a lot more murdering going on.
~President Dolores --The Republic of Falafel
President Dolores,
I must respectfully disagree. The reason for prisons is to remove offenders from the general population thereby increasing the safety of the people. That being said, once a serial killer is caught and put in prison, the criminal justice system and the prison have fulfilled their obligation to promote, provide for, and foster public safety. By putting the offender to death, no cause if furthered and it becomes, pardon the expression, overkill.
If, as some nations argue, that the death penalty is decided by economics and taxes, then I fear for the morality of the world. Equating a life, no matter how evil, to a monetary amount is horribly saddening.
So, to sum up my rebuttal:
1. Removing the offender from the people fulfills the objective of increasing public safety.
2. Life should never equal economics.
3. Therefore, the death penalty is worthless and accomplishes no reasonable goal.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue with you.
Respectfully,
HM Shawn Garza
King of Tessaglia
G.M. The Royal Order of the Crane
by Gimptown » Fri May 08, 2009 3:57 pm
The Nations of the World Assembly shall recognise that all persons within their jurisdiction have the right to life.
In this resolution, person is to mean a living being, from birth until death, of any sentient species that controls, founded or inhabits a member state or non-member nation.
1) All World Assembly member states shall protect all persons’ right to life by law. No person shall be deprived of his or her life by a member state.
2) A member state will not be in breach of this resolution if it deprives a person of life:
a. in lawful defence of any person from violence;
b. to lawfully prevent an immediate act of terrorism;
c. to prevent the escape of any lawfully detained person convicted of a violent offence;
d. as a legal penalty under existing state laws.
3) Member states with no existing legal penalty of death are prohibited from introducing the penalty.
4) Any member state that repeals an existing legal penalty of death is prohibited from reintroducing the penalty at a later date.
5) This resolution does not apply to a member state engaged in a legally sanctioned act of war to defend the peace of their nation from invasion or aggression.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri May 08, 2009 4:05 pm
by Secruss » Fri May 08, 2009 4:09 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:So, uh, now that the death penalty is perfectly legal under this statute, what is the point of the resolution? To punish non-death penalty nations and prevent them from reversing bad laws (clause 4)? Or to prevent nations from killing members of an invading army (which for some reason now is no longer an exemption)? I guess we'll just have to classify all enemy nationals as "terrorists," then.
(Which we already do, but all the same...)
by Arenhaldt » Sat May 09, 2009 1:54 am
by Esternial » Sat May 09, 2009 2:23 am
by Absolvability » Sat May 09, 2009 5:52 am
Arenhaldt wrote:The citizen in question is allowed a 6-month grace period to find such a nation.
Arenhaldt wrote:The governing body of this nation values the well-being of the nation as a whole over the well-being of single citizens. It is the goal of this nation to produce the ultimate society, and that the method for doing so lies in purging all negative traits from our gene pool.
by Maerngau » Sat May 09, 2009 6:09 am
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:So, uh, now that the death penalty is perfectly legal under this statute, what is the point of the resolution? To punish non-death penalty nations and prevent them from reversing bad laws (clause 4)? Or to prevent nations from killing members of an invading army (which for some reason now is no longer an exemption)? I guess we'll just have to classify all enemy nationals as "terrorists," then.
(Which we already do, but all the same...)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Tinhampton
Advertisement